[Ed]Hardfire with Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman

[DGM]

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

A point that you can't (won't) explain why it's so important.

 

[DavidJames]

Yet another perfect example of something that could be cleared up and/or at least quantified by asking the firefighters who gave these accounts whether they were merely told the building would collapse or if they actually observed the building themselves and believed/knew it would collapse.

Exactly, but that would take, what's the phrase I'm searching for....Intellectual honesty...Yes, that would take intellectual honesty.

Something I've yet to witness among the CT crowd, yes, even among the polite ones.

 

[johnny karate]

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

But what is the relevance of establishing this point? (Which we actually have already.) We know that in over six years none of these firefighters have come forward to question the official version of events.

So whether or not they were told or determined for themselves that WTC7 was going to collapse, none have expressed even the slightest bit of surprise or suspicion.

Clearly, these firefighters believed what they were being told.

 

[GStan]

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

I don't see the importance of making a distinction between being told it would collapse and knowing it would collapse. What is the importance of the difference?

If I tell you my real name is Jim Nazium, then you know my real name. If you are told that I have two kids, then you know I have two kids. What is the important difference between being told and knowing/believing?

 

[Totovader]

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

What makes you think that's a "very important point"?

Unless... you're trying to claim that those "at the top" were lying to those "at the bottom" and those "at the bottom" did not question this "lie"???

 

[Miragememories]

What makes you think that's a "very important point"?

Unless... you're trying to claim that those "at the top" were lying to those "at the bottom" and those "at the bottom" did not question this "lie"???

So you don't think there's an important distinction between being provided with an opinion by your superiors and forming an opinion on your own?

I think it's a very important point, but that's just the kinda guy I am.

Carry on.

MM

 

[GStan]

So you don't think there's an important distinction between being provided with an opinion by your superiors and forming an opinion on your own?

I think it's a very important point, but that's just the kinda guy I am.

Carry on.

MM

If it is so important to you, why won't you contact some of the firefighters who were there on 9/11, instead of incredulously persisting in a speculative and largely semantic argument? The firefighters who were at GZ and most normal people believe that WTC7 collapsed from debris and fire. You believe the firefighter statements of what happened, are somehow suggestive of an alternative collapse theory. Why don't you contact the firefighters to get clarafication? You might blow the entire conspiracy wide open.

 

[Totovader]

So you don't think there's an important distinction between being provided with an opinion by your superiors and forming an opinion on your own?

I think it's a very important point, but that's just the kinda guy I am.

Carry on.

MM

Once again, an amazing strawman from MM. I never said there was not an important distinction- I asked why Red thinks it's important. In other words, not only is it a lie, but it's an irrelevant one.

You cannot simply dismiss observations, measurements, and expertise because you believe that some people were told some things. Not only are you ignoring the very concept of first-hand knowledge, but you're pretending that people have no ability or authority to question this information at the same time that you want to claim that it's so obviously wrong.

It's a kind of narcissism that only conspiracists can cultivate. Misquote and bastardize the comments of experts when convenient- and then pretend they're too stupid, too blind, or too paid off to "see the facts" when they disagree.

Entirely circular reasoning- there's no testimony, eyewitness accounts, measurements, photos, videos, or research that you will accept as long as it contradicts your pre-determined position.

 

[Totovader]

To Red and MM and any other conspiracist:

Let's simplify this...

Of the following statements:

1) I can see the building is leaning.
2) We know the building is leaning.
3) We set up a transit and measured the lean of the building.

Which one(s) is/are an opinion?

Which one(s) is/are is "being told" without direct observation?

Which one(s) is/are repeatable, and falsifiable?

Finally, which one(s) is/are true, and why?

 

[Miragememories]

If it is so important to you, why won't you contact some of the firefighters who were there on 9/11, instead of incredulously persisting in a speculative and largely semantic argument? The firefighters who were at GZ and most normal people believe that WTC7 collapsed from debris and fire. You believe the firefighter statements of what happened, are somehow suggestive of an alternative collapse theory. Why don't you contact the firefighters to get clarafication? You might blow the entire conspiracy wide open.

I've already addressed that pointless issue several times.

If you think they'll talk to the public, you contact them.

MM

 

[DGM]

So you don't think there's an important distinction between being provided with an opinion by your superiors and forming an opinion on your own?

I think it's a very important point, but that's just the kinda guy I am.

Carry on.

MM

Why is it you guy's say it's a very important point but don't want to explain why? This doesn't seem like a unreasonable question, What's the problem?

 

[Miragememories]

You cannot simply dismiss observations, measurements, and expertise because you believe that some people were told some things.

So you're now in doubt that the firefighters were told anything by their superiors?

Not only are you ignoring the very concept of first-hand knowledge, but you're pretending that people have no ability or authority to question this information at the same time that you want to claim that it's so obviously wrong.

There's a significant difference between "first-hand knowledge" and "first-hand observation". Knowledge carries far more credibility than speculations based on superficial observations and equally speculative directives from superiors.

It's a kind of narcissism that only conspiracists can cultivate. Misquote and bastardize the comments of experts when convenient- and then pretend they're too stupid, too blind, or too paid off to "see the facts" when they disagree.

My my, you are tough on the firefighters. It sounds like you wanted to make those criticisms and had to wait for a truther veil to mask your intent.

Personally, I thought the firefighters behaved quite professionally and admirably under the circumstances.

It would never occur to me to use such insulting abusive language as that which you just used to falsely characterize the firefighters, and then suggest those were somehow the feelings of myself and others of the truth Movement.

You should be ashamed of yourself Toto.

Entirely circular reasoning- there's no testimony, eyewitness accounts, measurements, photos, videos, or research that you will accept as long as it contradicts your pre-determined position.

I'll thank you to not decide in advance how I'll respond to any newly provided facts or argument regarding these issues. You are not, and never will be qualified to make such bold assertions.

Carry on Toto.

Too funny.

MM

 

[GStan]

I've already addressed that pointless issue several times.

If you think they'll talk to the public, you contact them.

MM

Why? I'm normal. I can see their testimony for what it is. I don't feel any need to speculate about what they meant. Their testimony is supported by video, photo evidence and completely corraborates the prevailing explanation for what happened on 9/11. Conversely, the only way your speculative conspiracy theories are even possible, is through the completely unfounded manipulation/quote mining/misinterpretation of firefighter testimonies.

If you continue to raise issues with the firefighter accounts, I will continue to point out that your arguments are completely worthless, most especially because the issues you raise could easily be answered by simply talking to the firefighters.

To any lurkers reading, MM, Red and others have been asked repeatedly to seek clarification about FDNY accounts related to WTC7. Doing so could be the first step to uncovering the conspiracy behind one of the most diabolical crimes in history. They will not do it. The reason they will not do it is because they are fully aware that the FDNY will call their theories complete RULE10ING RULE10, at which point, MM or Red or whoever will be faced with two equally unappealling options: 1) disparaging the heroes of the FDNY or 2) admitting their conspiracy theories on WTC7 are complete RULE10ING RULE10.

I don't care what you believe. Just stop pretending that the FDNY accounts are in any way consistent with your fantasy.

 

[Miragememories]

Why is it you guy's say it's a very important point but don't want to explain why? This doesn't seem like a unreasonable question, What's the problem?

Why is the opinion of one professional on the scene, less important than the individual opinions of hundreds of other lower ranking professionals on the scene?

I think the question answers itself.

MM

 

[Totovader]

So you're now in doubt that the firefighters were told anything by their superiors?

Please quote where I said a single thing to that effect.

Clearly, you're inventing another strawman to avoid the issue.

There's a significant difference between "first-hand knowledge" and "first-hand observation". Knowledge carries far more credibility than speculations based on superficial observations and equally speculative directives from superiors.

How does an observation not lead to knowledge?

You're simply stating that knowledge is more credible than speculation... as if that has any relevance to your argument.

My my, you are tough on the firefighters. It sounds like you wanted to make those criticisms and had to wait for a truther veil to mask your intent.

It sounds like you want to avoid the issues by piling on strawmans.

Personally, I thought the firefighters behaved quite professionally and admirably under the circumstances.

What you're unwilling to state clearly, however, is that you believe that they are simply doing what they're told- without question.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It would never occur to me to use such insulting abusive language as that which you just used to falsely characterize the firefighters, and then suggest those were somehow the feelings of myself and others of the truth Movement.

You should be ashamed of yourself Toto.

I have nothing to be ashamed of. I did not- in any way- characterize firefighters as "just doing what they're told". My argument is- clearly- quite the opposite. It is you and your ilk who need to consider exactly how and why you believe firefighters are suddenly ignorant, unquestioning, incompetent sheep.

I'll thank you to not decide in advance how I'll respond to any newly provided facts or argument regarding these issues. You are not, and never will be qualified to make such bold assertions.

You're right- I should have just said that you wouldn't respond with anything but a clear evasion. Then I would have been 100% correct.

Carry on Toto.

Too funny.

MM

Not sure what you think is funny- but I would suggest that something being "too funny" to you is just your psychological response to something that makes you uncomfortable. You are avoiding your characterizations of the firefighters at the same time that you're trying to maintain your argument. That simply will not work.

 

[Totovader]

To Red and MM and any other conspiracist:

Let's simplify this...

Of the following statements:

1) I can see the building is leaning.
2) We know the building is leaning.
3) We set up a transit and measured the lean of the building.

Which one(s) is/are an opinion?

Which one(s) is/are is "being told" without direct observation?

Which one(s) is/are repeatable, and falsifiable?

Finally, which one(s) is/are true, and why?

*bump* for MM, who- I predict- will simply continue to ignore the points addressed by this exercise.

 

[johnny karate]

MM, give it up. We've been round and round on this issue many times, and you CTers always end up in the same position: Shrugging your shoulders and slinking away.

No firefighters that were on the scene that day agree with the assessment of CTers.*

None.

Whether they made a determination of collapse themselves or were told by others doesn't matter. They all witnessed the fire and damage. They have all had over six years to consider the events. And none have expressed even the slightest bit of doubt or suspicion regarding the official story.

None.

This is a great big brick wall CTers run into every time, and you have no way around it, and you know it, evident by the fact that not a single CTer has manned up and actually contacted the FDNY for clarification. You'd rather languish in interpretation and innuendo then actually go to the source to find out the truth.

So continue on with your verbal gymnastics all you want, but remember this: The FDNY does not agree with you.

*A word of warning: If you go down the road of implying unvoiced suspicions or doubts, you will therefore be making accusations of complicity after the fact. Tread lightly.

 

[DGM]

Why is the opinion of one professional on the scene, less important than the individual opinions of hundreds of other lower ranking professionals on the scene?

I think the question answers itself.

MM

If they doubted the consensus, yes, they don't. So why is this a very important question.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why is the opinion of one professional on the scene, less important than the individual opinions of hundreds of other lower ranking professionals on the scene?

Let me just remind you, MM, that you have no reason to believe that these "individual opinions of hundreds of other lower ranking professionals on the scene" differed in any way from the opinion of your "one professional on the scene".

I frequently get told things by my superiors that are intended to inform my opinions - it's a natural part of any job. If I think they're wrong, I tell them. And this is in a job where my survival and those of people relying on me doesn't depend on my being right. People are not mindless automatons, and being told something by your boss doesn't mean you immediately believe it wholeheartedly and remain convinced forever afterwards. I wonder what kind of world you live in, that you could believe it would.

Dave

 

[Obviousman]

Thread hijack:

I've been in the US now for a week, and no-one I have spoken to believes 9/11 was "faked" somehow. Many believe Bush took advantage of the situation, many dislike the current administration, many believe that there were government officials who were incompetent in the execution of their duties WRT 9/11... but none believe it was anything other than a terrorist act.

We now return you to your regular programming.